For our dear readers who do not understand Urdu, please allow me to offer an explanation. This clip begins with Kamran Khan asking the Information Minister for his views on whether the Supreme Court would acquit the Prime Minister. But Minister Kaira had something he wanted to say first.

My views later, but let’s first discuss the initial 18 minutes of your programme. The way you conducted your show – aiming at PM’s sons, family, his character – you have already declared him a convict, and are asking me this question after giving your opinion.

You are giving your opinion first and then asking me about my views, knowing that it’s not the anchor’s right to give his or her opinion first. Your right is asking questions. You already created a mindset in your audience – a biased mindset, that is – before even asking me my views.

You also showed a few clips from Chief Justice speeches in the beginning that were “assumptive”. – “If”, “In-case”, “this could happen”, “about to be give verdict” etc. You didn’t say anything, and yet you said a lot of things. In all your conversation, you kept the thrust on showing that he is a sinner and verdict has already been declared against him. Is this all not an influence on the court that is going to decide tomorrow? Is this not an attempt to bias the court?

The way you talked about my PM, I listened with a lot of patience. I listened to you for 18 mins defaming my party leader and the PM and I didn’t say a word so please let me speak. PM is appearing in front of the court tomorrow and you lay special emphasis on this when you said that “this has become a habit of the PM” and that “I will not accept this decision” even though the PM never once said this. I am completely negating your statement and saying that PM never said anything like that. He has always said, “I respect the court”. His lawyer inside the court mentioned that whatever you decide here will be implemented upon to the fullest.

The way you thrust forward your views is similar to bending facts and distorting them. You build up your opinion in front of viewers and this is a very unacceptable. We go and fight our cases in the courts; we don’t fight with the courts.

Kaira’s complaint about Kamran Khan’s behaviour may seem like the frustrations of a PPP Minister, but they might also be familiar to another high profile figure who is anything but a jiyala. Five years ago, Kamran Khan was playing the same role of media creating a biased mindset in the audience only this time his target was not the PM, but Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry himself.

We have noted several times the importance of media acting responsibly and not attempting to influence the outcome of a case or to create a biased mindset in the public before the Court has made its decisions. Opposition supporters may be enjoying the media’s keeping the PM in their sights today, but the PPP won’t be the party in power forever. And when the tables turn, well, just ask the Chief Justice…

Print PDF

Reporting the Court’s decision, Dawn carried the headline, Commission free to record Haqqani’s testimony via video: SC. According to this report, the Court favoured Haqqani’s plea and urged the memo commission to provide the former Ambassador with video link facilities.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the judicial commission probing the memo scandal could record Husain Haqqani’s testimony via video link from London, DawnNews reported.

A three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, heard Haqqani’s petition urging it to allow him the video link facility on security grounds.

The court ruled that the commission could record Haqqani’s testimony through video link if it thought fit.

The News/Geo, however, carried a very different headline about the same hearing: ‘SC rejects Haqqani’s video link plea’.

The Supreme Court (SC) resumed proceedings on a plea of Husain Haqqani, former Pakistan’s ambassador to the US, seeking its direction for the judicial commission to record his statement via video conferencing that was rejected by the court.

Ironically, both of these reports can be technically true, even though they are giving very different perceptions. The Supreme Court appears to have decided that it would not interfere directly in the commission’s proceedings, so it gave its advice to the commission to comply with Husain Haqqani’s request while not actually ordering it to do so.

Unfortunately, the article in The News/Geo does not provide this information, allowing for the misperception that the Supreme Court believes that Haqqani should not be allowed to record his statement via video link when, in fact, it said the opposite. Dawn, on the other hand, gave a more full accounting of the facts. We do not know why The News/Geo reported the Supreme Court’s decision the way it did, but we are concerned that people getting their information from these media outlets may be misinformed about what the Court actually said.

In a post titled ‘Fragmented Media, Fragmented Nation’ earlier this year we asked, ‘How can we agree on how to solve the most important issues facing the nation if we can’t even agree on what the most important issues are?’ In the case of the Supreme Court’s decision on Haqqani’s video link plea, media may agree on the issue, but by leaving out certain facts, some groups are fragmenting the nation by creating confusion about what actually happened. In order for the public to make informed decisions, we need all the facts – not only those that are convenient to a particular agenda.

We would also like to give special recognition to Express Tribune who, like The News/Geo originally reported that the Supreme Court had rejected Haqqani’s plea. Realising the mistake, the editors quickly corrected the report to reflect the facts. Additionally, the editors left a ‘Correction’ notice to prevent further confusion about why the report had changed:

Correction: Express News had earlier reported that the Supreme Court had rejected Haqqani’s application. This is incorrect. The application was referred to the judicial commission. The correction has been made.

We have noted in the past that mistakes happen, and media groups can earn the public’s trust by admitting their mistake and quickly correcting it rather than becoming defensive and making excuses. Express Tribune‘s correction note is an excellent example of responsible journalism that sets a standard which other media groups should be encouraged to follow. We look forward to a similar correction by The News/Geo.

Print PDF

Geo reported that Benazir Bhutto International Airport would be closed for two days, only to have their report followed by the Civil Aviation Authority reporting that the airport was reopened. Geo quickly changed their report without noting that they were correcting the previous report, further causing confusion as different people read the same report only to learn different things.

Gruesome images were broadcast on multiple channels. Pictures of body parts, pieces of jewelry, panicked, screaming people. Those who were holding onto their last prayer for the safety of their loved ones were forced to learn of their despair from a cameraman zooming in on a bangle, a bloody arm. Names of the victims were broadcast on TV so that some people were shocked to learn of their relatives death from an SMS before they even knew of the tragedy.

The most gruesome, however, was the way some elements of the media jumped on the opportunity to turn the tragedy into an opportunity for cheap political point scoring.

Dunya TV anchor Mubasher Lucman bizarrely criticised Rehman Malik for quickly responding to the crash “when he is not asked”, as if the Interior Minister should wait to be asked before responding to such a tragedy.

Of course, had the Minister been slow to respond, Mubasher probably would have criticised him for that, too.

The News (Jang Group) quickly followed suit, publishing a front page article reporting that ‘Political pressure allowed Bhoja Air to relaunch’. The article is based on statements of unnamed ‘sources’ who are not even being from Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) or officials in any capacity whatsoever. Another front page article in The News reported that Bhoja Air was granted a license despite being a defaulter of Rs.6.9 million owed to the CAA.

Both claims were contradicted by DG CAA the same day, suggesting that Jang Group’s reporters merely repeated the claims of their unknown ‘sources’ without taking the trouble to pick up the phone and request comment from CAA before rushing off to file their reports.

DG CAA Nadeem Yousafzai told reporters that the aircraft’s ‘black box’ could take a month to decode. While we might want answers sooner than this, the answers we want are the facts – not rumours, speculation, and cheap political points. A month is not too long to wait. If anyone is found to be responsible through either action or inaction, they should be held accountable. But until the investigation is complete, the media should restrain itself from making all manner of unfounded allegations, even those based on the statements of unknown and unnamed ‘sources’.

Following a senseless tragedy such as this, the nation is heartbroken. Healing will take time and the knowledge of what went wrong so that we know it will be prevented in the future. Through irresponsible and insensitive reporting, the media is pulling on our wounded heart strings and making a bad situation even worse.

Print PDF

Actually, the judiciary and journalism share some common traits. Both are intended to be a search for truth – a careful investigation of facts intended to help steer the nation on the right path. At times the work of journalists and judges overlaps as with the recent example of the ‘memogate’ controversy that grew from the claims made in an op-ed that were further publicised by additional news articles. Long before the Supreme Court took notice of the memo, it was a media story.

The most recent development of the memogate saga occurred recently when a British newspaper reported that one overlooked item from Mansoor Ijaz’s claims was that DG ISI Gen Pasha was secretly meeting with Arab leaders in preparation for a coup against the civilian government. ISPR has denied Mansoor Ijaz’s claim, terming the Independent piece “a baseless article”.

While an official denial is to be expected, Geo anchor Hamid Mir who reported on Mansoor Ijaz’s accusation against Gen Pasha reports that he has received death threats for reporting the story.

Dear Friends,

I would like to inform you that I received an SMS message at my blackberry today at 11:47 pm which said “i have not seen a real bastard than you. i wish somebody comes and strip you naked. i hope some Army man has not done real dirty with your dear ones.” This SMS was reaction of my show Capital Talk which was going on at that time on Geo TV in a repeat telecast.

I responded to this SMS and I got another message from the same number again (03335245252). Within few seconds another SMS from 03318175319 declared me a CIA, RAW and MOSSAD agent. I have received these kinds of threatening messages usually from intelligence agencies in the past. When I responded these messages quickly and told them to go court against me they were silent.

These recent threats are related to two recent shows on Geo TV. I discussed a story in The Independent in the UK reported by Omar Warraich on December 14th and raised questions about the political role of DG ISI [Director General of the Inter Services Intelligence Directorate Ahmad Shuja Pasha]. A constitutional petition was filed by [Community Party Chairman] Engineer Jamil Malik on December 19th in the Supreme Court of Pakistan [asking the court to remove Gen. Pasha] and I was included in the petition as one of the respondents. I came to know about this petition in the evening of December 19th. The same evening I discussed the press conference of Baloch leader Attaullah Mengal on my TV show. Mengal criticized Pakistan Army atrocities against Balochis. This show was aired in the evening of December 19th and repeated in the morning of December 20th between 11 and 12.

I am sure that security establishment of Pakistan is once again angry with all those who will raise questions about the political role of Army. If anything bad happens with me or my “dear ones” the security establishment will be responsible.

Hamid Mir

As Pakistan holds the dubious distinction of being ‘deadliest nation for journalists’ two years running, these threats should raise the interest of the Chief Justice as a matter of national interest. But in this most recent case, the issue should be of special interest to the court. The memo case is presently sub judice, which means that any threat against journalists reporting on the case are meant not only to influence journalists, but the outcome of a case also.

Media cannot be considered as independent if it is operating with a gun to its head. Neither can a judiciary be independent if any element is allowed to use threats of violence and death to influence the outcome of a case. How long must Pakistani journalists search for the truth without the protection of the court? And how long will the court allow its own independence to be questioned by ignoring this issue?

Print PDF

In concluding his piece, points to specific proof that the Americans know nothing about Afghanistan.

Before talking to the Taliban and the Haqqanis or taking them head-on with even greater vigour, the US and its allies would need to know more about these groups. As former US and Nato military commander in Afghanistan Gen Stanley McChrystal recently admitted, the US began the Afghan war with a frighteningly simplistic view and still lacked the knowledge to achieve a successful end.

An example of this paucity of knowledge about Afghanistan was on display recently when a picture of the late Afghan mujahideen leader Maulvi Yunis Khalis standing with President Ronald Reagan at the White House in the 1980s was mentioned as that of Jalaluddin Haqqani, who had never visited the US.

Only problem, this error was made not by the American media, but by Pakistani media, including Jang Group’s own Geo TV.

While Rahimullah Yusufzai may be correct “knowing thy enemy should be the first principle for the US prior to undertaking any new step towards making war or pursuing peace”, he accidentally suggests that perhaps we should be taking a look at ourselves also.

Print PDF

We knew it was going to be a special week in Pakistan media when we were treated to a special edition of Hamid Mir talking about whether the Americans were preparing to launch surgical strikes against Pakistan.

Alarmed by the possibility of being caught in an American strike, we began searching for the source of this threat. We were unable to find any American officials making any such threats. If there could be any good reason to invent the threat of surgical strikes, though, Hamid Mir knew just what it was. US pressurisation had finally united the nation. No longer were there any divisions in Pakistan as everyone had joined hands in a shared commitment to ‘Crush America’.

Hamid Mir’s jubilation was shared by his Jang Group colleague Ansar Abbasi who termed US criticism ‘a blessing in disguise for Pakistan‘ and maked a claim identical to Hamid Mir, that anti-Americanism is uniting the nation.

One is indebted to the Yankees for hurling the latest charge sheet against Pakistan at a time when we direly needed unity. It is now for the Pakistani leadership to exploit the American aggression in the best possible manner to eliminate terrorism, suicide bombings and extremism within Pakistan.

Actually, it was not just Jang Group that was convinced that US pressure had united the nation behind Army and ISI, also on Dunya on the same day’s Khari Baat, Mubahshir Luqman, Maleeha Lodhi and Hamid Gul made exactly the same statements.

As the week progressed, media headlines were filled with defiant statements about ‘fierce resistance‘, ‘severe responses‘ and ‘lead walls‘ to protect from the invading Americans. Editorial pages screamed about ‘unity for national defence’ and some media groups even reported ‘Fatwa for Jihad against America’.

Not only was the nation united against American threats, but all media voices reported in unison that the American threats were just a devious scheme to make Pakistan the scapegoat for America’s failure in Afghanistan.

This was reported not only by the guests of Hamid Mir and Mubashir Luqman’s shows above, but by retired brigadiers. And the same line even appeared in such respected publications as Pakistan Observer, where experts like “Dr Raja Muhammad Khan” warned the Americans to ‘accept harsh reality’. Media ‘think tanks’ published warnings to Americans complete with photos of missile tests and the reminder that Pakistan is a nuclear nation that should not be tested.

Recent tensions in US-Pakistan relations have even resurrected Zaid Hamid’s media career as ARY invited him to explain his disappointment in the All Parties Conference failure to declare martial law.

Though media did a commendable job of saying on a united message, in the future their handlers should do a better job of explaining the meaning of the talking points before allowing our respected TV anchor sahibs to make fools of themselves by mistakenly translating ‘scapegoat’ as ‘bhagi hui bakri’. Obviously some of the more famous talking heads may not understand the talking points they’re parroting, but they should at least know the right words to use.

As the week draws to an end, we look back at the headlines and talk shows and the headline in Jang reports that we will now ‘give peace a chance’. And so in the course of seven days, our media invented a war, fought bravely on the front (head)lines, and then quietly resolved the conflict without losing one single soldier. In fact, our media managed this war so effectively that the American media is not even mentioning their defeat.

It’s like the Americans are trying to pretend that there was never a war at all.

Print PDF

نیچے دی گئی ایک کلپ ملاحضہ فرمائیے۔

اس ویڈیو کو دیکھنے کے بعد یہ صاف واضع ھو جاتا ھے کہ کامران خان مصطفہ کمال کی تعریف کرتے نہیں تھکتے اور درمیانہ روی اختیار کرنے کے بجائے ام کیو ایم کی طرف داری کرنا شروع ھو گے۔

جو بات کامران خان صاحب کے روئیے سے پتا چلتی ھے وہ ھے کہ عوام کے جزبات پر کھیلتے ھوئے صرف اپنی ریٹنگ بڑھانہ ایک نہایت گری ھوئی بات ھے اور اینکر حضرات کو وہ سوالات کرنے چاھیں جو کہ اب تک نھیں اٹھائے گئے ھیں۔ جو بات کامران خان صاحب کے روئیے سے پتا چلتی ھے وہ ھے کہ عوام کے جزبات پر کھیلتے ھوئے صرف اپنی ریٹنگ بڑھانہ ایک نہایت گری ھوئی بات ھے اور اینکر حضرات کو وہ سوالات کرنے چاھیں جو کہ اب تک نھیں اٹھائے گئے ھیں۔

کامران خان صاحب سے چند سوالات پاکستان میڈیا واچ بھی کرن چاھے گی۔ کیا انہوں نے اپنے پروگام میں چٹ پٹی مصالحہ دار گپ شپ کے بجائے کبھی مندرجہ ذیل سوالات اٹھائے ھیں۔

1. کیا اس بات کا پتا چلانا ضروری نہیں تھا کہ اسامہ بن لادن پچھلے پانچ سال میں پاکستان میں کیسے موجود تھا بجائے اس کے کہ ملکی خودمختاری کا رونا رویا جائے۔
2. بڑے ناموں والے سیاست دانوں نے اپنے سرکاری یا سیاسی عہدے کیوں چھوڑے۔
3. گورنر پنجاب کا قتل صرف ایک آدمی کے سر پر ھے یا اس کا قصوروار ھمارہ معاشرہ ھے جس نے ان حالات کو پنپنے کی اجازت دی۔
4. پی۔این۔ایس مہران کے حملہ وار آخر کون تھے۔
5. وفاقی وزیر شہباز بھٹی کا قاتل کون ھے اور کیا مسلمان نہ ھونا ھی صرف انہیں قتل کرنے کے لیے جواز کافی ھے۔
6. کیا دھشت گردی کراچی کے بڑھتے ھوئے خراب حالات کی ذمہ دار نھیں ھے۔
7. کیا الطاف حسین اور ذولفقار مرزا صاحبان کی الزام تراشیاں ملک کے حق میں اچھی ھیں۔

کسی بھی اینکر کا  اصل مقصد اپنی رائے نہیں بالکہ اپنے مہمان کی رائے اور پرسپیکٹؤ لینا ھوتا ھے۔ اپنی ذاتی رائے گھول کر عوام کو خبروں کے روپ میں پیش کرنا نا صرف غلط ھے بالکہ ان پروفیشنل بھی۔

اول بات تو یہ دوم یہ کہ کامران خان ایک مشہور اور پرانے اینکر پرسن ھیں۔ انہیں اس بات کا احساس ھونا چاہیے کہ عوام تک ضروری اور سچی خبر پہنچانے کی ذمہ داری ان کے کندھوں پر ھےعوام ٹاک شوز اس لئے دیکھتی ھے تاکہ  اسےاس بات کا علم ھو سکے کہ مسائل کی وجوہات اور ان کے حل کیا ھیں۔۔

Print PDF

Notice that the Lashkar-e-Taiba founder is quick to say, “we are against all sorts of terrorism.” Of course sympathisers will claim that Jamaat-ud-Dawa is but a humble charity organisation. But if this is true, why in his next breath does he claim “we are the A-team of the Army” that is “against US invasions”? And here we thought that SSG was A-team of the Army. What type of charity organisation claims to be militant commandoes?

The important question here, though, is why Geo TV is inviting as its guest Hafiz Saeed who is classified as an international terrorist by the UN and Interpol? Freedom of speech does not mean free microphones, and freedom of media does not mean that Geo is obligated to provide a platform for Hafiz Saeed to spread his views. So why is Geo choosing to do this? Is it declaring an ideological sympathy with militants?

As for PEMRA, a gentle reminder:

PEMRA Code of Conduct for Media Broadcasters/Cable TV Operators states that:

(1) No programme shall be aired which:

(e) is likely to encourage and incite violence or contains anything
against maintenance of law and order or which promotes antinational or anti-state attitudes…

(o) contains material which may be detrimental to Pakistan’s relations
with friendly countries…

Print PDF

EVEN at the best of times it would have seemed unusual for America’s embassy in Islamabad to organise its recent gathering for “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender” people. Given the grim state of bilateral relations, the meeting looked downright provocative. Some in Pakistan’s religiously conservative society promptly accused America of conspiring to attack them by spreading outrageously liberal sexual views. One Islamic political party called it “cultural terrorism”.

And here is the opening paragraph from Sana Bucha’s opinion piece of 17 July in The News (Jang Group):

Even at the best of times between Pakistan and the US it would seem unusual for the latter’s embassy in Islamabad to organise a recent gathering for homosexuals. While some in the country accused the US of conspiring to contaminate our so-called conservative society, another political party dismissed this vulgarity as “cultural terrorism”. As if this was not damaging enough to the relationship, Washington also decided to hold back on Pakistan’s military aid amounting to 800 million dollars. India gloated, but a sulk set in powerful quarters of Islamabad.

Look familiar? No, Sana Bucha has not started writing for The Economist. But she has found herself in the spotlight lately as allegations are breaking that she has plagiarised from the British newspaper, trying to pass off someone else’s work as her own.

It should also be noted that Sana Bucha was one of 20 journalists invited to a secret briefing by ISPR following the Abbottabad fiasco. As Adnoon Farooq notes in his column for Viewpoint, this points to lack of professional ethics.

These journalists and anchorpersons may find no moral dilemma in attending the ISPR briefings. However, it is not a professional routine in line with journalistic ethics to attend a ‘briefing’ on such a vital issue as Abbottabad operation against Osama bin Laden, an event making global headlines, and hide it from their audiences.

The point of this post is not to demonize Sana Bucha. She was not the only journalist attending secret ISPR briefings, and she is not the only journalist at Jang Group to face allegations of plagiaraism.

In May of this year, Geo was caught apparently plagiarising an AFP article and removing references to the original media group so that it would not be noticed. One month earlier in April, The News (Jang Group) appeared to have plagiarised an article by a former CIA agent.

The question must be asked whether there a lack of professional ethics at Jang Group that has allowed a culture of plagiarism to grow at the media giant? This question is vital because it gets to a point far more important than whether Jang employees are stealing from other media groups which is why aren’t Jang reporters doing their own research? Why are they relying on talking points from government agencies and pieces in foreign media?

When people pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV, they expect that the journalist they are reading or listening to will be telling them information that they have researched and verified themselves, not just parroting what they have heard somewhere else. One is professional journalism. The other is just gossip. Does Jang Group know the difference?

Print PDF

‘In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in reexamining the claims as new evidence emerged-or failed to emerge’.
The Military Spokesman further said: “if the newspaper continues with its vilifying campaign without any concrete evidence, I am afraid at some point it may end up expressing its deep regret the way it did in the case of its Iraq coverage.

Pakistan Media Watch agrees with DG ISPR that it is unacceptable for media groups to allow controversial and questionable information that is insufficiently qualified to stand unchallenged. We further agree that concrete evidence is a necessary requirement of proper reporting.

Pakistan Media Watch looks forward to our own media adopting this same standard.

Print PDF